My reasoning for illegality was not just reproductive health, but also sociological. For example: Our cultural and social policies, primarily found in the tax code, are designed to encourage social mobility, wealth transference and the "nuclear family." Marriage and tax laws are social engineering designed to further these sorts of sociological interests. Outlawing gay marriage has nothing to do with the kind of social engineering that outlawing incest, for example, is designed to prevent. Gay marriage bans are purely moral and religious based, as I already said.

Second of all, making laws is not as simple as what the majority considers normal. This is a basic premise behind our system of government. Read the Federalist # 10 for some background. When something is so universally considered abhorrent, such as incest, then yes, social mores do come into play and are relevant. Alone they are a weak justification but their importance lies in their indication of actual objective reasons for them being bad, such as those that I have raised. (Health, sexual abuse issues, patriarchy, unequal distribution of property, etc.). But when you're talking about, say, 20% agreeing and 80% disagreeing, the reason we have courts, the constitution, the whole shebang, is to protect that 20% from the "capricious whim" of the majority. For instance, in the 60's a majority of Americans were against interracial marriage. Did that mean such laws were OK? Of course not.

"For example: Our cultural and social policies, primarily found in the tax code, are designed to encourage social mobility, wealth transference and the "nuclear family.""

Fine and dandy but other than the "nuclear family" these are not about "marriage".

"Marriage and tax laws are social engineering designed to further these sorts of sociological interests."

Of course laws about who can or cannot marry are all about sociological interests. And if society says that "marriage" is between one man and one woman that is a sociological interest.

"Outlawing gay marriage has nothing to do with the kind of social engineering that outlawing incest, for example, is designed to prevent. Gay marriage bans are purely moral and religious based, as I already said."

And a law saying a man cannot marry his sister has nothing to do with moral and or religious ideas? People think it is morally wrong for a man to marry his sister. Most people think it is morally wrong for a man to marry another man. This is why bans on gay marriage pass.

"Second of all, making laws is not as simple as what the majority considers normal."

No but it is a huge part of it.

"When something is so universally considered abhorrent, such as incest, then yes, social mores do come into play and are relevant."

I'm not sure it is universally considered abhorrent. It has happened in real life where brother and sister are seperated at birth then later fall in love and marry only to find out later that they are brother and sister. If they are not going to reproduce why should they not be able to stay married?

"Alone they are a weak justification but their importance lies in their indication of actual objective reasons for them being bad, such as those that I have raised. (Health, sexual abuse issues, patriarchy, unequal distribution of property, etc.)."

And again NONE of these things have anything to do with marriage. How the heck do you think "unequal distribution of property" has anything to do with marriage?

"But when you're talking about, say, 20% agreeing and 80% disagreeing, the reason we have courts, the constitution, the whole shebang, is to protect that 20% from the "capricious whim" of the majority."

So if 20% of people say a man should be able to marry his sister they should have that right?

What is the magic number when the wishes of a minority becomes the right of that minority?

"For instance, in the 60's a majority of Americans were against interracial marriage. Did that mean such laws were OK? Of course not."

There is a difference...

IF a white man can marry a white woman then a black man should be able to marry a white woman. To not allow that is discrimination because you allow one man to do something you do not allow the other man to do based on race.

With the gay marriage issue a straight man is allowed to marry a woman but also a gay man is allowed to marry a woman.

I realize that he does not want to marry a woman but he is allowed to marry a woman.

So basically Dottedmint, we should outlaw gay marriage because a simple majority of people say so? This poll by CNN (Link) shows an even split on the morality of gay marriage. So what should we do now? What if a majority eventually agree with it? Will you think it's OK to enact it then?

Secondly, you admit that majority opinion is trumped when it infringes on a person's rights by discriminating against them. But what constitutes discrimination? Why is telling a black guy he can't marry a white woman discrimination, but telling a gay guy he can't marry another gay guy not discrimination? Because a majority of people think gay marriage is wrong? A majority of people thought interracial marriage was wrong in the 70s. So why was that still considered discriminatory?

"This poll by CNN (Link) shows an even split on the morality of gay marriage. So what should we do now? What if a majority eventually agree with it? Will you think it's OK to enact it then?"

I question how much support gay marriage has because I don't know of any state that has actually passed it with a popular vote. It has always been a judge making a ruling. As said before in my state a ban on gay marriage passed by a large margin. IF the people of my state did not care if gays married the ban would not have passed.

And for the record, if my state had passed gay marriage with a popular vote I would have been fine with it. I object to a judge deciding what we (as society) must allow.

"Why is telling a black guy he can't marry a white woman discrimination, but telling a gay guy he can't marry another gay guy not discrimination?"

Because if a white man can marry a white woman you would be discriminating against a black man if you did not allow him to marry the same woman.

A straight man is allowed to marry a woman.

A gay man is ALSO allowed to marry a woman.

Both a gay or straight man is allowed to marry a woman and so there is no discrimination there.

In order to be discriminated against you need to not be allowed to do something that someone else is allowed to do.

I know the argument is that the gay man is not allowed to marry who he wants but that is not the point.

dottedmint:"This poll by CNN (Link) shows an even split on the morality of gay marriage. So what should we do now? What if a majority eventually agree with it? Will you think it's OK to enact it then?"

I question how much support gay marriage has because I don't know of any state that has actually passed it with a popular vote. It has always been a judge making a ruling. As said before in my state a ban on gay marriage passed by a large margin. IF the people of my state did not care if gays married the ban would not have passed.

And for the record, if my state had passed gay marriage with a popular vote I would have been fine with it. I object to a judge deciding what we (as society) must allow.

"Why is telling a black guy he can't marry a white woman discrimination, but telling a gay guy he can't marry another gay guy not discrimination?"

Because if a white man can marry a white woman you would be discriminating against a black man if you did not allow him to marry the same woman.

A straight man is allowed to marry a woman.

A gay man is ALSO allowed to marry a woman.

Both a gay or straight man is allowed to marry a woman and so there is no discrimination there.

In order to be discriminated against you need to not be allowed to do something that someone else is allowed to do.

I know the argument is that the gay man is not allowed to marry who he wants but that is not the point.

Both men could marry the same woman. (not at the same time. lol)

You tell me where he is discriminated against.

-----------------------------

Change your wording. A straight person is allowed to marry the person to whom they are attracted to, physically and emotionally. A gay person is not. THAT is the discrimination.

It's the same thing with interracial marriage: when a black man fell in love with a white woman (or white man/ black woman), they weren't allowed to marry. THAT is the discriminatory part.

And civil rights were decided in the courts first, too, just like gay marriage is being handled. Look at Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Just because a majority of people THINK something is wrong- or right- doesn't necessarily mean it is. Besides, parts of our nation's government were designed to PREVENT so- called "tyranny of the majority."

Its nobody's business - and that includes yours and "society's" and the government's - to decide which consenting adults can be married and which ones can't, and I don't give a fark how you want to spin it.

Mind your own goddamned affairs and quit concerning yourself with others'. You expect the same.

"Change your wording. A straight person is allowed to marry the person to whom they are attracted to, physically and emotionally. A gay person is not. THAT is the discrimination."

Except that marriage laws are not worded that way. You do not need to be attracted to the other person physically or emotionally to be able to marry that person.

"Just because a majority of people THINK something is wrong- or right- doesn't necessarily mean it is. Besides, parts of our nation's government were designed to PREVENT so- called "tyranny of the majority.""

So Greek, you support a mans right to marry his adult daughter?

I see Herb thinks that way.

And C-S, having the drinking age being 21 is not discrimination. Unless you think a 5 year old should be able to buy a beer also?

As I pointed out before, marriage laws do not talk about being able to marry who you want. They simply say (basically) that a man can marry a woman. This means that a gay man can marry a woman also.

dottedmint:In order to be discriminated against you need to not be allowed to do something that someone else is allowed to do.

How is not allowing anyone under 21 to not drink not discrimination according to your definition? This is your definition, not mine.

Point is, your definition of discrimination is kind of missing the point and too broad to be useful. You are basically defining it one way and then deciding to not call other things discrimination that clearly fit within your definition. You are doing this to avoid the actual issue.

The issue here is what discrimination is justified and what discrimination is not justified. Of course, discriminating against 5 year olds boozing is justified. But how is discriminating against gays marrying justified? What purpose does it serve? You still have not answered that question. Your only justification so far is "majority opinion" which is a poor justification.

There have been cases where brother and sister are seperated at birth only to fall in love later in life. When they go to get married they find out that they are brother and sister and are not allowed to.

They are two concenting adults who want to get married.

Do you support their right to marry or not?

C-S gay marriage does not fit within my definition of discrimination.

A straight man is allowed to marry a woman. He does not need to love this woman or be attracted to this woman.

A gay man is allowed to marry the same woman. He does not need to love that woman or be attracted to that woman.

Both men are allowed to do the same thing.

Marriage laws say nothing about loving the person you marry or being attracted to that person.

They simply say that a man can marry a woman.

Using your drinking situation...

If it is legal for a 21 year old to buy beer is it then discrimination to not allow another 21 year old to buy crack?

That is similar to the gay marriage debate.

Any 21 year old can go out and buy beer. It doesn't matter if he doesn't want or like beer, he can buy beer. If he wants crack, he is out of luck because he is not allowed to buy crack.

A gay man is allowed to go out and marry any* woman that he wants. It does not matter if he does not want to marry that woman, he is allowed to do the same thing a straight man is allowed to do.

Since you insist on having marriage defined as being between 'one man and one woman', would you please provide a working LEGAL definition of "man" and "woman". It seems that the Creator didn't always paint with black and white: there is a lot (over 1%) of the population whose sex is somewhere in the shades of gray.

Hello Nation! Help rename Colbert Georgia to honor the Great Stephen Colbert

I've posted a petition at petitiononline.com asking to have the town of Colbert, Georgia, renamed Colbert, Georgia, in honor of Stephen Colbert, a great communicator if there ever was one. The petition will eventually be sent to the mayor of Colbert, Georgia, hopefully after the petition is mentioned on The Colbert Report and Gainesville State College becomes world famous as a result. I am also doing this for my communications class so not only would you be helping to change a towns name in honor of the great Stephen Colbert, but you would also help me get some bonus points. The petition link is http://www.petitiononline.com/freem/petition.html, it just takes a second to go on and sign it. Thank you Nation!

dottedmint:I'm not looking for your permission for anything. Earlier in this conversation you said,

" Its nobody's business - and that includes yours and "society's" and the government's - to decide which consenting adults can be married and which ones can't,"

I'm just trying to figure out if you actually meant what you said or if you think in certain cases it is OK for society to tell certain adults that they cannot get married.

All right, I'll answer you.

No, it really isn't.

What it comes down to is not marriage at all, but farking. And you know it.

Since the government - which supposedly (cough) represents the society - cannot stop people from farking, it passes laws meant to show society that it does not condone farking between certain people. Said laws do not stop the farking.

I can't stop two people from farking, and neither can you, nor can any law intended to keep them from doing so.

If you think a law against farking will stop the farking, then perhaps you shouldn't fark anyone either.

This isn't about what is and isn't discrimination, anything can be discriminating. It's about why you discriminate. Alternatively, since you don't think it is discriminating, it's about why you don't let people do certain things.

So, you still haven't given us a rational reason for not letting gay people marry each other. Not their brother, not their dog---two gay people, unrelated, can't get married. Why? What is your reasoning?

Because society says so? You keep saying that. A majority of society agreed that interracial marriage was wrong. Does that mean it was OK to ban at that time?

Your prior answer to that question was "no because that's discrimination." My answer was (and would be) defining something as discrimination is not the only thing that matters: what can you discriminate against and why is the relevant question. Which brings us back to the initial question: why ban gay marriage? If you're reasoning is majority rule, then you've pretty much put yourself at odds with every major civil rights movement in our history, seeing as majority rule was what got us into trouble in the first place. (And because our system of government is precisely set up to guard against the "tyranny of the majority.")

C-S"(And because our system of government is precisely set up to guard against the "tyranny of the majority.")

And so our system of government should protect the right of a man to marry his sister?

Once again, every argument that you can make to support gay marriage can be used to support the examples that I have posted.

And every argument that can be made against the examples that I have posted can be used to argue against gay marriage.

And so if a man has a right to marry the person he falls in love with then he has a right to marry the person he falls in love with.

IF you say that society has the right to limit that mans right to marry because we think it is wrong to marry your sister then society also has the right to say that man does not have the right to marry another man.

IF you want to argue that society should allow gays to marry, fine. That is a seperate issue and not what I am arguing. I am simply arguing that a man does not have a right to marry whoever he wants and that since both a gay man and a straight man could marry the same woman (although not at the same time) there is no discrimination taking place.

You seem to be OK with society placing limits on who can or cannot marry. You don't think a man should be able to marry his sister. Right? But you don't think society should be able to say a man cannot marry another man. If you are ok with limits then you cannot claim that being able to marry the person you love is a right.

Since you are against the "tyranny of the majority" why would you think it is OK to ban the examples that I mentioned? Why should the majority of society be able to ban something they don't like?

Herb"who just can't grasp the simple concept of mind your own business."

First I love how when you cannot argue your case you first tell people to STFU then you resort to name calling.

But I fully understand the concept of mind your own business. If you want to shack up with another guy and have sex with him I am fine with that. I actually have more respect for a man who is in a 20 yr relationship with another man than I would for a man who has had 20 women over the last 20 years. But since it is society that decides our laws, this is my business because I am part of society.

"I'm out of this thread."

I don't know why you were in here in the first place. You never wanted me to ask for your opinion. I come into places like this to share my opinion and to see the opinions of others.

Still stuck on gay marriage here... man these arguments are getting old. Same ol stuff, never any question upon why marriage is recognized by the state and the social engineering behind it.

As I see it marriage is just a way for the state to reward people for doing what the state wants, that is have children and raise the children in a somewhat stable environment. This has completely ended as a social engineering tool. When you have as high of a divorce rate in the country it just fails. The ease of getting one has made for just walking away from your responsibility and promises, marriage is a joke. Instead of trying to enlarge the benefits from the govt we should just kill the whole social institution, it is no longer the tool it used to be.

Side note, from my anti-federalist feelings, if we continue with state recognized marriages the states should decide what they recognize and the fed should keep out of it. And the fed should be beholden and recognize marriages that are recognized by the states.

Can we get to a new topic please. How about the drooling seething hatred for the new AZ immigration bill is similar to the drooling seething hatred generated by the teaparty movement towards HC reform?

Saiga410"if we continue with state recognized marriages the states should decide what they recognize and the fed should keep out of it."

Thats basically my stance on the issue. If the state of Iowa (just to pick a state) were to have the people vote to say marriage includes gay marriage, I would be fine with that. This is because that would be society deciding what it will or will not call marriage.

"Can we get to a new topic please. How about the drooling seething hatred for the new AZ immigration bill is similar to the drooling seething hatred generated by the teaparty movement towards HC reform?"

I'm always open for a new topic.

That said I'm not sure I would say the teaparty movement is "drooling seething hatred". I also am not sure it is only focused on HC reform. Clearly it is a big part, but clearly only a part.

I would love to see someone in here explain why the AZ immigration law is so bad. I think a lot of the complaints are based on (for lack of a better word) lies.

But if anyone has some other topic they would like to debate, I would love to see it.

dottedmint:I would love to see someone in here explain why the AZ immigration law is so bad. I think a lot of the complaints are based on (for lack of a better word) lies.

Well there seems to be the kicker. I see a lot of the most heated reaction to the HC reform bill being based off of... well let me say incomplete information. While I think it is a bad bill (my main objections is that it does not much to thwart HC inflation and that its funding is aimed at soaking the rich and upper middleclass in an action aimed at helping the upper lowerclass {or whatever term floats your boat}/lower middleclss without asking anything from them... not even a reacharound), I cannot accept a lot of the critiques of deathpanels and such language. It is/was as uninfromed as the charges of papers please towards the AZ immigration bill. I see a lot of similarities in people parroting arduous reading of legislation in order to support their partisan ideals.

IF you want to argue that society should allow gays to marry, fine. That is a seperate issue and not what I am arguing.

So have you been arguing with yourself this whole time? I've been very clear that I am specifically talking about gay marriage only. I never said that anyone should be allowed to marry "anyone they love." Point out where I said that, I never did.

Since you are against the "tyranny of the majority" why would you think it is OK to ban the examples that I mentioned?

Again, it's very frustrating when you seem to just ignore what I write. People ban incestuous marriage because (and I already pointed this out) there are valid, government objectives served by banning inter-family marriage or polygamy besides people's moral qualms with them. I cited examples of these reasons in a post maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago and I don't feel like digging it up so you can go back and re-read it.

With that said, why should gay marriage be banned. Keep in mind majority vote does not trump basic rights, therefore you need to come up with a reason why gay marriage--specifically--should not be considered a right.

As for the AZ bill, it's a political stunt. The cops in AZ could already arrest or refer illegal immigrants if they suspected they were in AZ in violation of the law. This will cost AZ way more than it could ever possibly save thanks to the inevitable lawsuits that will now flow in from all directions.

Cleveland-Steamer:This will cost AZ way more than it could ever possibly save thanks to the inevitable lawsuits that will now flow in from all directions.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

It has the added bonuses of increasing disharmony amongst the communities of Arizona instead of strengthening them and will give dumb white people something to be angry about when it is found unconstitutional.

"So have you been arguing with yourself this whole time? I've been very clear that I am specifically talking about gay marriage only. I never said that anyone should be allowed to marry "anyone they love." Point out where I said that, I never did."

Sigh. I am arguing that one man does not have a right to marry another man. IF you want to argue that he should be allowed to marry another man, fine. I just said to Saiga410"If the state of Iowa (just to pick a state) were to have the people vote to say marriage includes gay marriage, I would be fine with that. This is because that would be society deciding what it will or will not call marriage."

My state recently voted to ban gay marriage, to say that marriage was only between one man and one woman.

"I cited examples of these reasons in a post maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago and I don't feel like digging it up so you can go back and re-read it.

I did (thankfully because they only save 4 weeks) and this is how I responded to your "reasons".

C-S "My reasoning for illegality was not just reproductive health,"

Good. Reproductive health has nothing to do with marriage.

"but also sociological."

Ok.

"For example: Our cultural and social policies, primarily found in the tax code, are designed to encourage social mobility, wealth transference and the "nuclear family.""

Fine and dandy but other than the "nuclear family" these are not about "marriage".

"Marriage and tax laws are social engineering designed to further these sorts of sociological interests."

Of course laws about who can or cannot marry are all about sociological interests. And if society says that "marriage" is between one man and one woman that is a sociological interest.

"Outlawing gay marriage has nothing to do with the kind of social engineering that outlawing incest, for example, is designed to prevent. Gay marriage bans are purely moral and religious based, as I already said."

And a law saying a man cannot marry his sister has nothing to do with moral and or religious ideas? People think it is morally wrong for a man to marry his sister. Most people think it is morally wrong for a man to marry another man. This is why bans on gay marriage pass.

"Second of all, making laws is not as simple as what the majority considers normal."

No but it is a huge part of it.

"When something is so universally considered abhorrent, such as incest, then yes, social mores do come into play and are relevant."

I'm not sure it is universally considered abhorrent. It has happened in real life where brother and sister are seperated at birth then later fall in love and marry only to find out later that they are brother and sister. If they are not going to reproduce why should they not be able to stay married?

"Alone they are a weak justification but their importance lies in their indication of actual objective reasons for them being bad, such as those that I have raised. (Health, sexual abuse issues, patriarchy, unequal distribution of property, etc.)."

And again NONE of these things have anything to do with marriage. How the heck do you think "unequal distribution of property" has anything to do with marriage?

"But when you're talking about, say, 20% agreeing and 80% disagreeing, the reason we have courts, the constitution, the whole shebang, is to protect that 20% from the "capricious whim" of the majority."

So if 20% of people say a man should be able to marry his sister they should have that right?

What is the magic number when the wishes of a minority becomes the right of that minority?

"For instance, in the 60's a majority of Americans were against interracial marriage. Did that mean such laws were OK? Of course not."

There is a difference...

IF a white man can marry a white woman then a black man should be able to marry a white woman. To not allow that is discrimination because you allow one man to do something you do not allow the other man to do based on race.

With the gay marriage issue a straight man is allowed to marry a woman but also a gay man is allowed to marry a woman.

I realize that he does not want to marry a woman but he is allowed to marry a woman.---------------------------------------------

So clearly I am not the one who is ignoring what people write in here. I responded to your "reasons" and pointed out the flaws in them. You did not point out where my responses were wrong or in any way invalid.

I'll try this again.

Since you are against the "tyranny of the majority" why would you think it is OK to ban the examples that I mentioned?

"Keep in mind majority vote does not trump basic rights, therefore you need to come up with a reason why gay marriage--specifically--should not be considered a right."

You are working from the idea that gay marriage is a right. I'm not.

Do people have a right to marry the person they fall in love with?

'Yes. But not if I don't agree with them getting married.'

You tell me that this person has a right to marry the person that they fall in love with but then in the same breath tell me that this other person does not have that same right.

"As for the AZ bill, it's a political stunt. The cops in AZ could already arrest or refer illegal immigrants if they suspected they were in AZ in violation of the law. This will cost AZ way more than it could ever possibly save thanks to the inevitable lawsuits that will now flow in from all directions."

IF this new law does not change anything then why the hubbub and why would there be any lawsuits? Are rights being violated with this law?

Soup4Bonnie"It has the added bonuses of increasing disharmony amongst the communities of Arizona instead of strengthening them and will give dumb white people something to be angry about when it is found unconstitutional."

Wow, so now you've resorted to misquoting me? Interesting that this little exchange never happened:

Do people have a right to marry the person they fall in love with?

'Yes. But not if I don't agree with them getting married.'

I never said "Yes but not if I don't agree with them getting married." In fact I specifically said no, people do not have a right to marry the person they fall in love with.

As for the AZ bill, there is an uproar because of how it is structured. For one it authorizes the citizens of AZ to sue the cops if they don't believe they are adequately enforcing the new law. Secondly the new law allows police, upon "lawful contact" (which can mean anything) to inquire into a person's immigration status based on reasonable suspicion that they are illegal. It is highly likely, unless you are incredibly naive, that reasonable suspicion plus the incentive to not get sued by crazy fringe groups will lead cops to use racial profiling and unfairly detain citizens of a certain skin color or who speak the wrong language if they are not carrying their necessary paperwork.

Take this scenario. Two people are walking down the street. Person A is a white woman who speaks perfect american english but is from Canada and is actually here illegally. Person B is a tan looking gentlement of Mexican descent who speaks highly accented English, and not well, but is an American citizen. Neither have their driver's license or any other ID on them. Police Officer decides to randomly engage in conversation with both of them and asks them if they have any proof of citizenship. Neither do and both profess to being citizens. Do you think cops are going to arrest a white english speaking young woman who does not happen to be carrying her driver's license or the Mexican guy? Neither? Both?

I personally think the Mexican guy would get arrested and the white woman would get asked for her phone number. (And I also think the white woman probably wouldn't even get asked about her citizenship). If you disagree with how this little hypothetical went down then I see no point in arguing as our perceptions of reality are probably irreconcilable.

C-S"I never said "Yes but not if I don't agree with them getting married." In fact I specifically said no, people do not have a right to marry the person they fall in love with."

Sorry.

I guess me using ' ' was too subtle for you. IF I was actually trying to quote something specific that you said, I would have used " " .

Every other time I have quoted you, I have used " "s.

So you do NOT think that a man has a right to marry the person he falls in love with?

So gay marriage is NOT a right???

So if a person does not have a right to marry the person he falls in love with, why should gay marriage be allowed?

I noticed that you have yet to answer this...

Since you are against the "tyranny of the majority" why would you think it is OK to ban the examples that I mentioned?

"upon "lawful contact" (which can mean anything)"

No. "Lawful contact" does not mean "anything".

"to inquire into a person's immigration status based on reasonable suspicion that they are illegal."

Right. And the problem is what? The police are allowed to use "reasonable suspicion" as a trigger for furter action.

"If you disagree with how this little hypothetical went down then I see no point in arguing as our perceptions of reality are probably irreconcilable."

Since you are talking simply a hypothetical there really is no reason to debate it. You think X will happen but you have no proof that it will happen. You think the law will be abused but you have no way to prove that it will. When the law does get abused then feel free to come back in here. If you can point to something real that the law violates (or whatever) please point to it. Hypotheticals are just that... hypothetical.

Since it was in italics and following other italicized quotes, it's pretty obvious your intention was to make it look like that was what I said, or portray that as my opinion, both of which would be wrong.

I think gay marriage is a right. That is different than the right to marry who you love.

You are looking at our concept of liberty backwards and asking for someone to substantiate their right to do something. Instead the government needs to substantiate their interest in preventing you from doing something. That's how it works. That's how the Constitution and Bill of Rights is written.

Unless you prefer the European concept of human rights, which is basically you have no right to anything unless the government says you have that right. If that's the case I have to ask Why Do You Hate Freedom? (TM)

As for AZ: Lawful contact includes consensual contact. Such as an officer coming up to you on the street and asking you how the weather is. Under that umbrella basically any contact where the person does not ignore the officer or responds to them in some way is lawful contact. Since most normal people do not ignore police officers talking to them, lawful contact is basically a completely meaningless term that can mean anything.

Again, officers could already inquire into a person's immigration status if they formed a reasonable suspicion that they were illegal already. The bill is political posturing and a stunt, and it will cost AZ more in the long run dealing with it.

C-S"That's how it works. That's how the Constitution and Bill of Rights is written."

Alright. So where in the US Constitution does it say gay marriage is a "right"? Just curious. What is your constitutional basis for your opinion that gay marriage is a "right"?

The 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Since marriage is not a "right" covered by TBOR or TUSC it goes back to the states or the people to decide. My state (via the people voting) decided to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. IF my state had decided to define marriage (via the people voting) in a way to include gay marriage then it would have become a "right" but they did not.

"Again, officers could already inquire into a person's immigration status if they formed a reasonable suspicion that they were illegal already."

And they still need a reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally before they can take action. So what rights are being violated by this bill? You give hypotheticals that you think may happen but thats all you have, hypotheticals that the law will be abused. If you can point to where this violates the rights of innocent people, by all means please do.

C-S "That's how it works. That's how the Constitution and Bill of Rights is written."

Alright. So where in the US Constitution does it say gay marriage is a "right"? Just curious. What is your constitutional basis for your opinion that gay marriage is a "right"?

The 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Since marriage is not a "right" covered by TBOR or TUSC it goes back to the states or the people to decide. My state (via the people voting) decided to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. IF my state had decided to define marriage (via the people voting) in a way to include gay marriage then it would have become a "right" but they did not.

"Again, officers could already inquire into a person's immigration status if they formed a reasonable suspicion that they were illegal already."

And they still need a reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally before they can take action. So what rights are being violated by this bill? You give hypotheticals that you think may happen but thats all you have, hypotheticals that the law will be abused. If you can point to where this violates the rights of innocent people, by all means please do.

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

OK. So what does the law say when it comes to marriage? In my state it says that marriage is between one man and one woman. A straight man can go out and marry a woman. A gay man can also go out and marry that same woman. (albeit not at the same time) It does NOT say that a man can marry whoever he wants. It does not say that a man can marry the person he loves. It simply says that marriage is between one man and one woman. I'm sorry but there is no violation of the equal protection clause because a gay man is allowed to do the same thing a straight man is allowed to do and that is to marry a woman. He may not want to marry a woman but he is allowed to marry a woman.

IF the law said that a straight man can marry a woman but a gay man cannot marry a woman then the equal protection clause would be in violation because the straight man would be allowed to do something that the gay man cannot do.

Soup4Bonnie"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. "

I'm curious where you came up with this idea. IF from this day forward there were no more marriages the human race would survive just fine. IF it is indeed one of the "basic civil rights of man" then should there be ANY limits on who can or cannot get married?

Since The US Constitution does NOT cover marriage, the 10th Amendment puts the issue back in the control of the States to decide. My State decided that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Or, Walker could rule that Boies and Olson succeeded in doing what they say they will fight to the end to demonstrate -- that the fundamental right to marry and the equal protection of the laws of the United States are violated when same-sex couples are denied access to civil marriage.